The Fifth Trumpet - Jerusalem's Seige

[gdemoss]

Very interesting reading. Being at Worthy and being exposed to all the different ideas out there has helped me to solidify my understanding and I am a combination of that which is spoken of here. A historist/preterist as well as futurist. The problem I see that people are having is they see the truth, just not all of it. Some pieces are missing. That which is natural precedes that which is spiritual in nature. All the things shared in this thread about what happened to the Jews happened but they are all pictures of that which would happen yet future spiritually. Types and shadows are important if we are to understand that which is happening all around us. The seventy sevens fulfill twice. We are in the end of the second fulfillment, the spiritual one.

Buefinger, you are very well studied and I appreciate all that you have written that I have had time to read. You have helped to give me insight of that which is on the horizon. Thank you.

[firestormx]

I've gone rounds here and it seems like firestormx is the only one open-minded enough to explore my points with no sense of prejudice or desire to abandon his own views. He is holding it with an open hand, willing to drop it at any time. I am the same with my eschatology. All I know is that futurism cannot hold up to scholarly research or critical analysis and exegesis.

First, Thanks for giving me time to consider, pray and take things before God. I think we are both clear we don't agree, yet both understand we don't have a monopoly on God either. There is plenty for us both to learn. I don't think either of us has it all figured out. To my points then.....

I guess I'll start with a question. Have you done a word study on this in the greek, latin and hebrew? The reason I ask is this. In all of revelation when looked at in the greek for example ( greek and latin are a much more specific language than english), When it says the earth, when it talks about the whole earth it is just the greek word for earth. But when it uses the word in greek ( gEs I believe is the word ) meaning land it is always, always in every other place in the new testament when it means land, like the land of Israel, it says the word and then Israel. My point is, if you do a study on the word used in revelation, in the seals and trumpets, that is used for earth, it's very specificly talking about the whole earth. Compare all the usages of the word throughout the entire new testament. There is a clear new testament president set down in how the word is used. The word in many of the seals, has to mean, because of the usage of the word, the whole earth. At no time in history, has these things happened to the whole earth.

I have done word studies, but not on the words for earth or land. Here's what my Strong's KJV app says for earth mentioned in the Fifth Trumpet:

"Pronunciation

ghay

contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application):--country, earth(-ly), ground, land, world."

My impression is that it could mean both. I suppose it would help us to know why the Fifth Trumpet is blasted. We know that those affected did not repent of their wickedness, but even John Baptist and Jesus called their generation of Jews wicked, perverse, and unrepentant.

Next, at the beginning of revelations, chapter 1 I believe, John says that Christ told him that this was to the 7 churches. The 7 churches were not in all in Isreal, if any. Some I know were in asia, and the modern turkey. So how could this only be about jerusalem and no one or nothing else. He also repeats in the 22 chapter that this is to all the 7 churches throughtout the world, not just Israel and jerusalem.

It is my belief that those that saw the abomination of desolation set up in Jerusalem fled the city an country like Jesus warned then to do. The places they fled to were the seven churches addressed in Rev. 1. Likely, the war in Judea ha already occurred and the Jews in those seven cities were trying to rally support for the Jewish war. Christ warned His disiples not to follow after them. Apparently, some in Ephesus had fallen away and went to Jerusalem. They were warned to repent, lest they lose their church, and thus their inheritance of the kingdom. (Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6)

This message was important so that they would both be spared the destruction their friends and relatives would face and so they could spread the Gospel among the Gentiles, expanding Christ's dominion.

Also, How can attrribute all this to the destruction of the temple and sacking of Jerusalem (70AD by titus), when revelation is believed to have been written in about 95AD after the destruction in Jerusalem? This is also why there is no church in Jerusalem mentioned in the 7 churches, because at the time of the writing of revelation, the temple and Jerusalem have already been destroyed.

As I said, I believe Jerusalem had been abandoned by the disciples. I don't believe Revelation was written in 95 CE because it doesn't make sense how John would be so silent on something so monumental in Covenant history.

One early church father wrote of an account in which John chased down a prodigal up hill. How could he do that at such an old age? Eusebius thought the author was a different John. All Iranaeus said was that it was during Domitian's reign, but I think that account is second or third hand. Nero's middle name was Domitius. Could be in Nero's reign.

How I proceed from here, greatly depends on your answers to my questions like, if you have done a study on the wording in revelation, the usage of the word earth. If you have, How do you come to the conclusion that it means just Israel, when everything else in the new testament, goes against that being the case?

Firestormx

Joseph

I'm of the belief that many eschatologists are starting from a speculative and misinformed position. The disciples were Hebrew Israelites, not Latin or Greek theologians. I look forward to your responses.

First, you said "My impression is that it could mean both". It can't. That's why I asked you to do a word study. Let me give you an example,

Revelation 8:7

The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

The greek word used in this verse reads as gEn, which can mean land or the entire earth. However, every time in the new testament that it means just a land or a specific area it looks like this.

John 3:22

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

When you look at this in the greek it looks like this, ioudaian gEn. ioudaian is judaea gEn is land. This is my point, there are many more examples, When the bible is speaking of a specific region or area it's specfic about which region it's talking about.

Acts 7:11

Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Chanaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance.

This in the greek would look like this

tEn gEn aiguptou kai chanaan

the land of egypt and chanaan

There are many more examples, but I think this clearly makes the point I'm trying to. The verses in revelation are speaking of the whole earth, not just Israel or Jerusalem.

Next, History is pretty clear that revelation was written after the temple was destroyed. You said " it doesn't make sense how John would be so silent on something so monumental in Covenant history." But John wasn't writing history, but what he saw and heard and was told to by Jesus in a vision. He did what he was told to.

Lastly, I believe you misunderstand the abomination of desolation. It is clear in the book of daniel, which is the referance Jesus told us to use, that it includes an abomination being set up in the temple. Not the temple being destroyed. Someone will set up an Idol in the temple and demand that they are worshiped as God.

I've covered alot here, but it comes down to a simple point. It can't be fullfilled because the language is clear that it's speaking of the whole earth. There are many programs online to help read the bible in the greek. I use one called ISA. Interliner Scripture Analizer. There are many. I would recommend you get one of these free programs and look at the language used. It's very clear and presice. Greek, latin and hebrew are actually more accurate than our english.

Firestormx

Joseph

[Bluefinger]

First, you said "My impression is that it could mean both". It can't. That's why I asked you to do a word study. Let me give you an example,

Revelation 8:7

The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

The greek word used in this verse reads as gEn, which can mean land or the entire earth. However, every time in the new testament that it means just a land or a specific area it looks like this.

John 3:22

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

When you look at this in the greek it looks like this, ioudaian gEn. ioudaian is judaea gEn is land. This is my point, there are many more examples, When the bible is speaking of a specific region or area it's specfic about which region it's talking about.

Acts 7:11

Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Chanaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance.

This in the greek would look like this

tEn gEn aiguptou kai chanaan

the land of egypt and chanaan

There are many more examples, but I think this clearly makes the point I'm trying to. The verses in revelation are speaking of the whole earth, not just Israel or Jerusalem.

Noted. If you consider Revelation 13's first and second beast, the same word for earth is used. We know that these kingdom's don't literally come from the sea and the earth. Therefore, we can safely say that the possibility that the earth doesn't literally mean the entire globe in the Fifth Trumpet is valid. Additionally, if you were trying to hide information from the Jews like Jesus did, you wouldn't specify what land you were talking about.

Take Luke 21:23 for example:

"Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people." (Luke 21:23 ESV)

Jesus was saying that distress would come upon the earth AND wrath against this (that generation of Jews) people. Now, in context to Luke 21:23, the earth that is in distress is the land of Judea, as specified in verse 21. The word for earth in Luke 21:23 is the same word used in both the first trumpet and the fifth trumpet.

My point is that sometimes the word 'earth' was used interchangeably as land. It's the most confusing conundrum in all the land.

Next, History is pretty clear that revelation was written after the temple was destroyed. You said " it doesn't make sense how John would be so silent on something so monumental in Covenant history." But John wasn't writing history, but what he saw and heard and was told to by Jesus in a vision. He did what he was told to.

If we post-date the writing of Revelation to 95 CE, we run into some problems. First, chapters 4-22 don't seem to have any relevance to the original audience. According to futurists, the information was intended for a much later group of people. That means that the original audience were really just preservers of information that was really inspirational to them, just not entirely relevant. That contradicts the purpose of literary works. If you want to preserve information, you build a time capsule or keep the letters secret, only to be opened on a certain date. If you want people to understand a coded message, you make the information relevant to them. The literary piece fits its historical context. And that is my point. If Revelation was written in 95 CE, then the original audience is either left irrelevant or historically forgotten.

In addition to that, they seem separated by a great chasm from the audiences of the other NT books.

Lastly, I believe you misunderstand the abomination of desolation. It is clear in the book of daniel, which is the referance Jesus told us to use, that it includes an abomination being set up in the temple. Not the temple being destroyed. Someone will set up an Idol in the temple and demand that they are worshiped as God.

What says that the sacrifice in the temple is abomination of desolation? Are you sure that you aren't starting from a false premise?

Let me ask this: If the Jews were obeying God, would He have even allowed Antiochus IV into His temple to desecrate it? Or was it already desecrated? Evidently, determining what the abomination of desolation was during the days of Daniel is key to learning what it was in the days of the John the apostle.

"It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper." (Daniel 8:11, 12 ESV)

It says that the host would be given over to the horn along with the regular burnt offering because of transgression. Some other definitions say, act of rebellion. If you go back and read the history behind the abomination of desolation, you can see that a man named Jesus changed his name to Jason and paid Antiochus IV for the high priesthood, which was given over to him. Onias was kicked out and Jason was instated. Jason immediately began trying to convert the Jews to Hellenism, forbidding the practice of Judaism. This was before Antiochus IV came in and slew the Jews and sacrificed a pig in God's temple. After that event, a fortress between the temple and the palace was established with the apostates that abandoned Judaism. It was for this act of rebellion that the host was given over and the sacrifice put to an end, not because of what Antiochus IV did in the temple.

"Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate." (Daniel 11:31 ESV)

The abomination of desolation, as defined in Daniel 11, was not the sacrifice or desecration of the temple. In this passage it comes afterward. 1 Maccabees says that, between the temple and palace was a fortress established, which harnessed the most wicked part of the apostates, the ones who openly forsook the Covenant. After the Maccabees purified the temple, they raized the fortress to the ground and leveled it to make sure the thought of it would never come up again.

But there is one left here to discuss. Daniel 9:27.

"And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." (Daniel 9:27 ESV)

Daniel 8 revealed what wasn't clarified in Daniel 11; that the abomination of desolation was not the desecration of the temple, but a fortress of wicked men within the government that had both abandoned the covenant and trampled the high priesthood underfoot. Daniel 9 describes what would cause the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple; something that wasn't described in Daniel 11. It was only hinted at in Daniel 12:1. The abomination of desolation, mentioned in Daniel 9 is the one that Jesus referred to in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. If the first abomination of desolation was a fortress of lawlessness in Jerusalem, then we can easily determine that the second one (which Jesus mentioned) is a fortress full of wicked men as well. That brings me to my point: The abomination of desolation was when the temple itself was fortified by wicked men and apostates.

"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place ( let the reader understand)," (Matthew 24:15 ESV)

The abomination of desolation was set up in the temple. If the first abomination of desolation was not an altar to a pagan god or a man proclaiming himself a god, but was a fortress of wicked apostates, then the second temple was when wicked men and apostates fortified the temple. That is why Matthew and Mark mentioned Barrabas being released. He was a known murderer that was released in place of the righteous King. The Jews made their statement that they would rather a murderer for a king than the righeous Messiah. Josephus showed so much that murderers like John of Gischala took over the high priesthood and slaughtered their own people. They got murderers to rule them instead of a righteous King. The elect got to live under Jesus' righteous oversight.

I've covered alot here, but it comes down to a simple point. It can't be fullfilled because the language is clear that it's speaking of the whole earth.

I hope that I've tested that theory and found that it isn't so definite. And if we have a reasonable doubt, then we can unapologetically revisit my theory.

There are many programs online to help read the bible in the greek. I use one called ISA. Interliner Scripture Analizer. There are many. I would recommend you get one of these free programs and look at the language used. It's very clear and presice. Greek, latin and hebrew are actually more accurate than our english.

Firestormx

Joseph

Are those programs compatible with iPads?

[firestormx]

First, you said "My impression is that it could mean both". It can't. That's why I asked you to do a word study. Let me give you an example,

Revelation 8:7

The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

The greek word used in this verse reads as gEn, which can mean land or the entire earth. However, every time in the new testament that it means just a land or a specific area it looks like this.

John 3:22

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

When you look at this in the greek it looks like this, ioudaian gEn. ioudaian is judaea gEn is land. This is my point, there are many more examples, When the bible is speaking of a specific region or area it's specfic about which region it's talking about.

Acts 7:11

Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Chanaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance.

This in the greek would look like this

tEn gEn aiguptou kai chanaan

the land of egypt and chanaan

There are many more examples, but I think this clearly makes the point I'm trying to. The verses in revelation are speaking of the whole earth, not just Israel or Jerusalem.

Noted. If you consider Revelation 13's first and second beast, the same word for earth is used. We know that these kingdom's don't literally come from the sea and the earth. Therefore, we can safely say that the possibility that the earth doesn't literally mean the entire globe in the Fifth Trumpet is valid. Additionally, if you were trying to hide information from the Jews like Jesus did, you wouldn't specify what land you were talking about.

Take Luke 21:23 for example:

"Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people." (Luke 21:23 ESV)

Jesus was saying that distress would come upon the earth AND wrath against this (that generation of Jews) people. Now, in context to Luke 21:23, the earth that is in distress is the land of Judea, as specified in verse 21. The word for earth in Luke 21:23 is the same word used in both the first trumpet and the fifth trumpet.

My point is that sometimes the word 'earth' was used interchangeably as land. It's the most confusing conundrum in all the land.

Next, History is pretty clear that revelation was written after the temple was destroyed. You said " it doesn't make sense how John would be so silent on something so monumental in Covenant history." But John wasn't writing history, but what he saw and heard and was told to by Jesus in a vision. He did what he was told to.

If we post-date the writing of Revelation to 95 CE, we run into some problems. First, chapters 4-22 don't seem to have any relevance to the original audience. According to futurists, the information was intended for a much later group of people. That means that the original audience were really just preservers of information that was really inspirational to them, just not entirely relevant. That contradicts the purpose of literary works. If you want to preserve information, you build a time capsule or keep the letters secret, only to be opened on a certain date. If you want people to understand a coded message, you make the information relevant to them. The literary piece fits its historical context. And that is my point. If Revelation was written in 95 CE, then the original audience is either left irrelevant or historically forgotten.

In addition to that, they seem separated by a great chasm from the audiences of the other NT books.

Lastly, I believe you misunderstand the abomination of desolation. It is clear in the book of daniel, which is the referance Jesus told us to use, that it includes an abomination being set up in the temple. Not the temple being destroyed. Someone will set up an Idol in the temple and demand that they are worshiped as God.

What says that the sacrifice in the temple is abomination of desolation? Are you sure that you aren't starting from a false premise?

Let me ask this: If the Jews were obeying God, would He have even allowed Antiochus IV into His temple to desecrate it? Or was it already desecrated? Evidently, determining what the abomination of desolation was during the days of Daniel is key to learning what it was in the days of the John the apostle.

"It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper." (Daniel 8:11, 12 ESV)

It says that the host would be given over to the horn along with the regular burnt offering because of transgression. Some other definitions say, act of rebellion. If you go back and read the history behind the abomination of desolation, you can see that a man named Jesus changed his name to Jason and paid Antiochus IV for the high priesthood, which was given over to him. Onias was kicked out and Jason was instated. Jason immediately began trying to convert the Jews to Hellenism, forbidding the practice of Judaism. This was before Antiochus IV came in and slew the Jews and sacrificed a pig in God's temple. After that event, a fortress between the temple and the palace was established with the apostates that abandoned Judaism. It was for this act of rebellion that the host was given over and the sacrifice put to an end, not because of what Antiochus IV did in the temple.

"Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate." (Daniel 11:31 ESV)

The abomination of desolation, as defined in Daniel 11, was not the sacrifice or desecration of the temple. In this passage it comes afterward. 1 Maccabees says that, between the temple and palace was a fortress established, which harnessed the most wicked part of the apostates, the ones who openly forsook the Covenant. After the Maccabees purified the temple, they raized the fortress to the ground and leveled it to make sure the thought of it would never come up again.

But there is one left here to discuss. Daniel 9:27.

"And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." (Daniel 9:27 ESV)

Daniel 8 revealed what wasn't clarified in Daniel 11; that the abomination of desolation was not the desecration of the temple, but a fortress of wicked men within the government that had both abandoned the covenant and trampled the high priesthood underfoot. Daniel 9 describes what would cause the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple; something that wasn't described in Daniel 11. It was only hinted at in Daniel 12:1. The abomination of desolation, mentioned in Daniel 9 is the one that Jesus referred to in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. If the first abomination of desolation was a fortress of lawlessness in Jerusalem, then we can easily determine that the second one (which Jesus mentioned) is a fortress full of wicked men as well. That brings me to my point: The abomination of desolation was when the temple itself was fortified by wicked men and apostates.

"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place ( let the reader understand)," (Matthew 24:15 ESV)

The abomination of desolation was set up in the temple. If the first abomination of desolation was not an altar to a pagan god or a man proclaiming himself a god, but was a fortress of wicked apostates, then the second temple was when wicked men and apostates fortified the temple. That is why Matthew and Mark mentioned Barrabas being released. He was a known murderer that was released in place of the righteous King. The Jews made their statement that they would rather a murderer for a king than the righeous Messiah. Josephus showed so much that murderers like John of Gischala took over the high priesthood and slaughtered their own people. They got murderers to rule them instead of a righteous King. The elect got to live under Jesus' righteous oversight.

I've covered alot here, but it comes down to a simple point. It can't be fullfilled because the language is clear that it's speaking of the whole earth.

I hope that I've tested that theory and found that it isn't so definite. And if we have a reasonable doubt, then we can unapologetically revisit my theory.

There are many programs online to help read the bible in the greek. I use one called ISA. Interliner Scripture Analizer. There are many. I would recommend you get one of these free programs and look at the language used. It's very clear and presice. Greek, latin and hebrew are actually more accurate than our english.

Firestormx

Joseph

Are those programs compatible with iPads?

No you haven't disproved anything. I have made my vcase. the langauge is clear. This is about basic grammer of the greek language. Not your or my belief on the end times. The language makes it impossiple to be just Jerusalem. The fact is you want to ignore truth to fit your personal opinions is the real problem. I'm done with this conversation. You have no desire for truth. You already know it all. I don't know about an Ipad, you'll have to look. God bless you

[Bluefinger]

Its really unfortunate that you want to end the discussion. K was really putting my theory to the test and you were the only one really testing it. And I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was stating that my theory shouldn't be just dismissed.

So my use of Luke 21:23 didn't apply? Would it help if I used more examples?

I was hoping you would address Luke 21:23.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Bluefinger

[firestormx]

Its really unfortunate that you want to end the discussion. K was really putting my theory to the test and you were the only one really testing it. And I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was stating that my theory shouldn't be just dismissed.

So my use of Luke 21:23 didn't apply? Would it help if I used more examples?

I was hoping you would address Luke 21:23.

It is not a matter of scripture. I haven't even went into that. All I have been focused on is the greek grammer of the scripture. The greek langauge all on it's own, makes your belief impossiple. The greek is a very specific langauge. There is no chance it means Jerusalem or Israel. It means the whole earth. You need to do a study on the language used in revelation in comparision to the rest of the new testament. There is no doubt at all in the langauge used. This is about your lack of understanding of greek grammer. That's not me knocking on you, but stating a fact, that's easily correctable. The langauge used by the wriiter leaves no question it's the whole earth. I really don't know what else to say. There is no reason to go in doctrinal reasons when this by itself shows it to be false. As for the Luke verse. It's about context. The context of the surronding verses is used to apply the proper meaning. In the trumpets, there is no referance inderct or direct to Israel or Jerusalem, which means the meaning has to be earth, not land of Israel or land of Jerusalem. Look at all uses of the words in the new testament, not just one verse. Then you'll see what I mean. Look at it in context of the surrounding verses and the language used.

God bless

Firestormx

[Bluefinger]

Its really unfortunate that you want to end the discussion. K was really putting my theory to the test and you were the only one really testing it. And I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was stating that my theory shouldn't be just dismissed.

So my use of Luke 21:23 didn't apply? Would it help if I used more examples?

I was hoping you would address Luke 21:23.

It is not a matter of scripture. I haven't even went into that. All I have been focused on is the greek grammer of the scripture. The greek langauge all on it's own, makes your belief impossiple. The greek is a very specific langauge. There is no chance it means Jerusalem or Israel. It means the whole earth. You need to do a study on the language used in revelation in comparision to the rest of the new testament. There is no doubt at all in the langauge used. This is about your lack of understanding of greek grammer. That's not me knocking on you, but stating a fact, that's easily correctable. The langauge used by the wriiter leaves no question it's the whole earth. I really don't know what else to say. There is no reason to go in doctrinal reasons when this by itself shows it to be false. As for the Luke verse. It's about context. The context of the surronding verses is used to apply the proper meaning. In the trumpets, there is no referance inderct or direct to Israel or Jerusalem, which means the meaning has to be earth, not land of Israel or land of Jerusalem. Look at all uses of the words in the new testament, not just one verse. Then you'll see what I mean. Look at it in context of the surrounding verses and the language used.

God bless

Firestormx

Fair enough. By logic, I'm forced to believe that the seals and trumpets are regarding the Jewish Nation and Jerusalem. I feel it hard to properly communicate why I feel that way.

All of the New Testament writings regard the time of Jesus and the time of the Apostles. Then, two thousand years of no prophetic word or fulfillment. No talk about the deaths of the apostles Peter and Paul. No mention of the war in Judea and Jerusalem. No mention of Nero's reign of terror.

Because the preconception is that John wrote Revelation in 95 CE, we are forced to rely on hearsay about what really happened. This gap creates, IMO, the biggest problem to interpretation. It creates major holes that we have to fill with eschatological doctrines that far post-date the writing itseld. Why did it take 1600 years to come up with futurism's seven year great tribulation, or 1800 years to develop the secret rapture doctrine? These have holes the size of Jupiter, but doctinr forces us to fill them with things that must be stretched to do so.

As I said, I'm not a preterist. I just believe that almost have the book has to do with John's time in 66 CE. The rest discusses the Times of the Gentiles, which I believe is still not fulfilled.

And no, I don't study Greek grammar, and I get your argument. I just can't force myself to accept it because, after doing thorough studies into preterism and futurism, I can't accept those previously accepted models any longer. The leave too mich up to speculation, which is why many eschatologists can't see my argument. They are locked into either preterism or futurism with a closed fist, simething that not even the earliest of Church fathers were bold enough to do.

On top of that, it makes me sick to see Christians come up with an anti-Christ candidate list after every major election. The mark of the beast is evidently something related to denying Jesus but yet many say its receiving a tracking implant microchip that has no effect on the conscience. Poor eschatology is what often results from a closed-hand eschatological doctrine.

So, despite the fact that my Greek grammar doesn't work out, I am forced by logic to still believe that John was hiding the specifics in code.

So I totally understan what you mean about context and all. I just can't bring myself back to believing what modern eschatologists are claiming about futurism. It leaves to many questions:

Why write to the seven churches? Who were they? Were they personally aquatinted with John? Why write to them if the prophecies were intended solely for Chrisians in the next two thousand years? If the end was near when John wrote Revelation 1:3, why hasn't it come? Or is the end really the end of something else?

Just a few. God bless you too.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Bluefinger

[Jayyycuuup]

Its really unfortunate that you want to end the discussion. K was really putting my theory to the test and you were the only one really testing it. And I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was stating that my theory shouldn't be just dismissed.

So my use of Luke 21:23 didn't apply? Would it help if I used more examples?

I was hoping you would address Luke 21:23.

Hello Bluefinger,

I have been poking my head in periodically into this discussion, though I believe you bring up good points.

A few things before we get started that I would appreciate you adressing.

1) *Edit* cleared up in post above.

If this is so, I would be curious as to your thoughts about the Jews as a nation, since they did not turn to Messiah in 70 AD as prophesied in Zechariah 12:10.

And another thing, if (most/all) prophecy had occurred, then about about the judgement of the nations as described in Matthew 25:31-46?

2) Luke 21:23 "How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people." Not sure the point your trying to make here?

[Bluefinger]

Its really unfortunate that you want to end the discussion. K was really putting my theory to the test and you were the only one really testing it. And I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was stating that my theory shouldn't be just dismissed.

So my use of Luke 21:23 didn't apply? Would it help if I used more examples?

I was hoping you would address Luke 21:23.

Hello Bluefinger,

I have been poking my head in periodically into this discussion, though I believe you bring up good points.

A few things before we get started that I would appreciate you adressing.

1) *Edit* cleared up in post above.

If this is so, I would be curious as to your thoughts about the Jews as a nation, since they did not turn to Messiah in 70 AD as prophesied in Zechariah 12:10.

Hi Jacob. Thanks for the response!

For your question, I would point to Revelation 11:7-14, just shy of the seventh trumpets.

As I said in earlier posts, the seals and trumpets regard the Jewish Nation and Jerusalem. After the sixth trumpet, the sequence is interrupted to disuss the Times of the Gentiles briefly (Rev. 10:11.) Revelation 11:1-2 start with John's time; with the temple being measured and the outercourt being given over to the Gentiles to trample underfoot. Then the two witnesses, whom I believe to be the saints among the Gentiles living out the Abrahamic Covenant where those who bless them are blessed and those who curse them are cursed (vs. 5.) During this time, the Gentile nations live out the promises of God until the fulnness of Gentiles comes, (Romans 11:25-26) which is covered in vs. 7. Then vs. 8 shows them in Jerusalem until they are resurrected (Romans 11:13-15.) When those the Jews left see it, they will glorify the Lord (Matthew 23:39.) It will be then that Christ will return and deliver them as foretold in Zecahariah 14.) I hope that was a satisfactory response.

And another thing, if (most/all) prophecy had occurred, then about about the judgement of the nations as described in Matthew 25:31-46?

I will give you my answer, but I want to know what you think of Matthew 28:18. When did Christ receive power, authority, and dominion over heaven and earth?

2) Luke 21:23 "How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people." Not sure the point your trying to make here?

It was in response ti firestormx's comment that Greek grammar would use the word earth to mean the entire earth unless it was used before a name, such as land of Judea; as established in verse 21. He was making the argument that when the first trumpet and fifth trumpet mentioned the earth, they were not talking about Judea but were about the entire earth.

Although, the first trumpet brings hail on the entire globe according to firestormx's argument yet only a third of its trees are destroyed. I still have strong enough reason to believe that the trumpets, up to just after the sixth, were fulfilled inthe war on Judea from 66 CE to 70 CE.

[Jayyycuuup]

Hi Jacob. Thanks for the response!

For your question, I would point to Revelation 11:7-14, just shy of the seventh trumpets.

As I said in earlier posts, the seals and trumpets regard the Jewish Nation and Jerusalem. After the sixth trumpet, the sequence is interrupted to disuss the Times of the Gentiles briefly (Rev. 10:11.) Revelation 11:1-2 start with John's time; with the temple being measured and the outercourt being given over to the Gentiles to trample underfoot. Then the two witnesses, whom I believe to be the saints among the Gentiles living out the Abrahamic Covenant where those who bless them are blessed and those who curse them are cursed (vs. 5.) During this time, the Gentile nations live out the promises of God until the fulnness of Gentiles comes, (Romans 11:25-26) which is covered in vs. 7. Then vs. 8 shows them in Jerusalem until they are resurrected (Romans 11:13-15.) When those the Jews left see it, they will glorify the Lord (Matthew 23:39.) It will be then that Christ will return and deliver them as foretold in Zecahariah 14.) I hope that was a satisfactory response.

Interesting, if this reflects the Jewish Nation and Jerusalem then what do you make of the two witnesses??

Also, looking at the trumpets in full, how do you interpret them to reflect Jerusalem and the Jewish Nation? To be fully honest here I am quite ignorant when it comes to prophecy, but looking at them, I just don't see what your implying. And since our focus is on the book of Revelation, what do you make of the four beasts along with the Anti-Christ? What seem overwhelmingly important to your case, is that if it were true that Jesus had returned then where is the peace? Why is there still an confusion in his mere existence? Why would we go from every knee shall bow, and confess the name of the LORD, to pure "chaos."

Okay, I see you have addressed the two witnesses, but your really stretching the scriptures (IMO) that holds as much truth as to saying there are more than one two witnesses, which is far from the truth, especially when it is foretold God will give power to His TWO witnesses. (Whom mind you in Rev.11:8 will lie in the streets, is there a telling of this occurrence? Along with that the resurrection of them?)

Though I do see a line of reasoning, I do not see one that aligns with scripture, it appears as if there is a lot that is being disregardful for instance what I have posted above, just a lot of imagination. And I don't mean that to try and put you down,. it is just my honest opinion. You see The prophecy of the Two witnesses as a spiritual deliverance, but this is not how the bible depicts it.

Also, I would appreciate you explaining your line of reasoning both scriptural and historically that the seals and trumpets refer to the Jewish Nation and Jerusalem. Please be specific.

will give you my answer, but I want to know what you think of Matthew 28:18. When did Christ receive power, authority, and dominion over heaven and earth?

Curious as to why you brought up Mathew 28:18? This pertains precisely to them, (the disciples) we get this implication in the verse following that. I bring up Mathew 25:31-46 because this is yet to be done, the Judgement of all nations has yet to be fulfilled. God Himself is to judge, and His presence of doing so is yet to be fulfilled.

It was in response ti firestormx's comment that Greek grammar would use the word earth to mean the entire earth unless it was used before a name, such as land of Judea; as established in verse 21. He was making the argument that when the first trumpet and fifth trumpet mentioned the earth, they were not talking about Judea but were about the entire earth.

Although, the first trumpet brings hail on the entire globe according to firestormx's argument yet only a third of its trees are destroyed. I still have strong enough reason to believe that the trumpets, up to just after the sixth, were fulfilled inthe war on Judea from 66 CE to 70 CE.

I firmly agree with Firestom's response to you. And thank you for the clarification.

God bless you!

The Holy Spirit guide us all to truth, In Jesus Name, Amen

Looking forward to your reply!!